Re: [registrars] DRAFT Standard form for use by losing registrars after a transfer is initiated
- To: Jim Archer <jarcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [registrars] DRAFT Standard form for use by losing registrars after a transfer is initiated
- From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:53:06 -0400
- Cc: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, registrars@xxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- Organization: Tucows Inc.
- References: <09a501c37215$26d8adc0$fa05a8c0@TIMRUIZ> <3F55DEFC.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
- Reply-to: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030901 Thunderbird/0.2
On 9/5/2003 6:14 PM Jim Archer noted that:
Ross, this is nonsense. Most of the problems in this industry come
either from unethical registrars or from resellers, who (1) don't
understand what they are doing or (2) don't care what they are doing.
Jim - you are completely correct. The problem with transfers started
with one or two large registrars that ignored convention and exploited
loopholes within our agreement to the benefit of their on interests -
and to the detriment of industry.
The conversation over the last two years has focused on a) what
convention actually is and should be and b) what sort of policies we
need to have in place in order to ensure that the convention is upheld.
It is fundamentally unfair to punish the smaller companies, who are
trying to distinguish themselves from our competitors, because of the
unethical acts of our competitors or, frankly, the unethical acts of the
resellers of the bigger companies.
More and more, registrars are being told *exactly* how to do business.
The new transfer policy is intended to tell registrars *what* to do -
there is some grey area that wanders into *how* territory, but these are
Rather than dictate how and when we all do something, why don't we hold
the unethical agents responsible for their behavior? If the problem is
bad apples, then don't throw out the entire bushel.
I couldn't agree more - problem is, the current contracts are just vague
enough that this type of behaviour is not only permissible, but actually
encouraged. The existing contracts make a mockery of customer choice and
domain name portability - and the statistics back this up.
I honestly don't see any other way of getting to a more appropriate
state without tightening up regulation and enforcement - it simply isn't
possible under the existing deal.
"Around computers it is difficult to find the correct unit of time to
measure progress. Some cathedrals took a century to complete. Can you
imagine the grandeur and scope of a program that would take as long?"